VANCOUVER, B.C. - The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is a citizen's tribunal of conscience that was duly constituted by the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings June 15-17, 2012 in Vancouver, B.C.

Alfred Lambremont Webre, one of the Judges on the Tribunal states, "As a duly constituted citizen's tribunal of conscience for the events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal has jurisdiction under natural law and justice; declarations of natural law, such as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights; international humanitarian law such as the Geneva Conventions; and national laws such as national, state and provincial criminal statues prohibiting murder and conspiracy for any jurisdiction whose citizens died in the World Trace Center on 9/11. The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal was convened by a worldwide community of citizens who participated in the 911 Vancouver Hearings (June 15-17, 2012) in Vancouver, BC and via streaming internet from diverse locations around the world including the United States, India, and elsewhere."

During the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings, 19 expert witnesses gave sworn testimony as to names, titles, and implicating evidence for individuals, each of whom is alleged to have acted as part of a common plan as a leading co-conspirator in the events of 9/11 and for whom they are aware of prima facie evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact.

9/11 War Crimes Tribunal Indictment

Following the Hearings, these 19 sworn expert witnesses and additional expert and eye witnesses on 9/11 have been requested to file further written submissions and affidavits with the 9/11 Vancouver War Crimes Tribunal on or before July 15, 2012 as to individuals for whom there is prima facie evidence that they acted as part of a common plan in the events of 9/11. Each expert witness is being asked to provide a detailed summary of implicating evidence for each such individual named.

Two of the conference organizers of the Vancouver Hearings, James Fetzer and Kevin Barrett, organized a boycott of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal following the Tribunal's accepting into evidence of the affidavits of 9/11 eyewitness Andrew D. Basiago, Esq. and Leuren Moret, MA, PhD ABD. Most of the conference speakers joined the boycott and withdrew their evidentiary submissions from the Tribunal.

The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal plans to call additional expert and eyewitnesses and develop and issue an Information and Indictment of individuals alleged to have participated in a criminal, common plan and conspiracy to carry out the events of September 11, 2001.

At some point, with sufficient 9/11 expert and eye-witnesses, the 9/11 Tribunal will issue an indictment. The Information and Indictment will be accompanied by an Evidentiary Report, setting out the evidence of probable cause for the indictments of the Accused.

Legal implications of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal

Following the issuance of an Information and Indictment against specific named individuals who allegedly participated in a common plan and conspiracy in the events of 9/11, there are multiple legal venues in which the criminal charges in the Information and Indictment can be prosecuted and tried, and verdicts and judgments reached and enforced against the Accused.

A. International law - The alleged crimes of the Accused in the Information and Indictment may be found to violate the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and constitute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. At the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings Judge Alfred Webre stated, "The 9/11 false flag operations may qualify as a crime against peace, war crime, genocide, and crime against humanity, inter alia, if it can be demonstrated that the true intent of the 9/11 perpetrators was to carry out 9/11 as a pretext for invading Afghanistan, which invasion and war has been found to be genocidal because of the use of depleted uranium weapons and other reasons. So the legal chain of culpability is there, under the Nuremberg precedents of a crime against peace and starting an unjust war. The Tokyo Tribunal for War Crimes in Afghanistan, in an opinion by Judge Niloufer Bhagwat, found that U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration had committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity through the horrific birth defects and other widespread genetic and health damage cause to Afghan civilians through the U.S. use of depleted uranium weapons."

The 9/11 Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal to the national courts of any of the more than 100 nations, such as Germany and Spain, that are signatories to the Rome statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution and enforcement, as well as to the ICC itself. The chief prosecutor of the ICC, to the criticism of many throughout the world, has failed to act on over 400 complaints on war crimes in Iraq and in Afghanistan by US and UK forces, and has privately stated he will not take jurisdiction of 9/11.

Organization of American States - According to one source, "The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal Indictment can also be submitted to the Organization of American States (OAS) which might be an even better choice since it has the only international criminal court the U.S. has signed onto and the other OAS member countries may not be so biased in favor the U.S. One attorney took the U.S. government as a defendant there to get an opinion on the fact that the US used Depleted Uranium weapons on hospitals in Granada during the U.S. attack on Granada. She won and the U.S. had to rebuild all the hospitals they destroyed in Granada. She never would have achieved that victory in any other international courts."

B. U.S. Congress - The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal to the U.S. Senate and to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the Accused Treason under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which provides, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

There is legal precedent for such an action. In November 2007, a Memorandum was presented to senior Congressional staff and personally to Rep John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee setting out sufficient prima facie evidence of Article III(3) treason in connection with the events of 9/11 by George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other Jane and John Does. Senior Congressional staff acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations in the Memorandum. Rep. Conyers took the Memorandum home to Detroit, MI over the Thanksgiving 2007 holidays promising an answer as to whether he would move on the file after the Holidays. To this date, no answer has been forthcoming from Rep. Conyers.

C. Canadian Parliament - There are various concurrent efforts to have the Parliament of Canada investigate the 9/11 events, as NORAD is a joint Canada/USA function and 26 Canadians were killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal to members of Parliament and the Senate, including the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leaders in the Parliament of Canada to appoint a Public Inquiry to investigate and report on possible criminal violations by Canadian persons or U.S. persons, including U.S. government employees or contractors/agents, and other individuals flowing out of the 9/11 events.

D. Prosecution for murder - The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal Indictment can be taken by the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal to any District attorney and/or U.S. Attorneys in the United States of America, and to any Public Prosecutors in other nations whose citizens were killed in the World Trade Center or the events of 9/11. The alleged Accused, Co-conspirators and persons acting in a common plan to cause, facilitate or support the events of September 11, 2001 can each be prosecuted for murder by a U.S. attorney, by a district attorney or by public prosecutors of a nation whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001.

E. 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal - The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal can establish a formal Tribunal for a trial of the Accused under the 9/11 Vancouver Indictment. This trial would be heard by the 9/11 Tribunal Judges, with appointed prosecutors, counsel for the Accused and due process for the Accused. A sister tribunal of conscience, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, has successfully tried George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al. for war crimes in Iraq.

9/11 War Crimes Tribunal

Judges on the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal include Constance (Connie) Fogal, B.A, B.Ed, M.A., LL.B, and Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd. Connie Fogal is former leader of the Canadian Action Party, former Vancouver Parks Board Commissioner, former Director, Kitsilano and Vancouver Community Resource boards; lawyer with the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee to oppose what Fogal sees as threats to Canadian constitutional sovereignty. Alfred Lambremont Webre is a Judge on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, submitted a Memorandum to the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 9/11 and was a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty.

The 9/11 Vancouver Hearings were organized by under Professor Jim Fetzer, PhD, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who edited its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ (Madison) and produced its first DVD; and co-organizer Joshua Blakeney, Graduate student at the University of Lethbridge, 9/11 activist, Staff Writer at Veterans Today, and now the Canadian correspondent for PressTV, who was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to study “The Origins of the Global War on Terror”.

The Memorandum to the U.S. Congress addresses the issue of the law of treason and constitutional accountability for the events of September 11, 2001. The Memorandum is designed to raise the prima facie evidence which supports the appointment by the U.S. Congress (or other entity) of an independent or special prosecutor to “prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.”

This is the second of a
multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the
events of September 11, 2001, and the consequent implications for our
society.

In his article “False
Flag
Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective” Dr. Michael E.
Salla states, “The fourth
exopolitical
factor [of false flag operations] concerns the use of weather
modification technologies that former Secretary of State William Cohen
confirmed as existing in 1997.” The “weather modification technologies”
Dr. Salla is referring to include directed energy weapons which, by the evidence,
have been used in scalar, weather warfare and seismic false flag
operations such as December 26, 2004 (Boxing Day) Indonesian Tsunami,
the China earthquake of May 12, 2008, the Haiti earthquake of January
12, 2010, and the Chile earthquake of February 27, 2010.

Dr. Judy Wood,
a former assistant professor at Clemson University, has developed
compelling evidence that a directed energy weapon turned the physical
matter of the World Trade Center towers into nanoparticles through the
process of molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood demonstrates clear evidence
that cannot be accounted for by the official 9/11
Commission explanation or alternative theory of military planes,
cruise missiles, or other projectiles hitting the World Trade Center
buildings, or a controlled demolition caused solely by "advanced
explosive nano-thermitic
composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," or solely by
4th generation mini-nukes.

In a February 22, 2010 Washington Times article,
Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, states, "’Government officials will be
notified that 'Misprision of Treason,' U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a
serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason
to act,’ Mr. Gage says. ‘The implications are enormous and may have
profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial.’”

The trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may soon begin (subject to
reported political negotiations with Republicans), as U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder testified
before a U.S. House appropriations subcommittee on March 16, 2010 that
“a decision will be made in a matter of weeks on where to try the
alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks,” indicating that the Obama
administration has a pre-determined position on the evidence that the
events of September 11, 2001 were a false flag operation.

United
States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. "is the upcoming
trial of five alleged Al-Qaeda members for aiding the September 11, 2001
attacks. Charges were announced by Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann
on February 11, 2008 at a press conference at the Pentagon. The men
charged are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed al Qahtani, Ramzi
Binalshibh, Ammar al-Baluchi, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. In an 88-page
complaint, the group was charged with attacking civilians, attacking
civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in
violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of
the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, terrorism,
and providing material support for terrorism. If convicted, the five
will face the death penalty."

Regardless of whether U.S.
President Barack H. Obama chooses to have these defendants tried in a
U.S. Military Commission or in a U.S. Federal court, the evidence
amassed by such researchers as Dr. Judy Wood and Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth satisfies the burden of proof that the events
of September 11, 2001 were, beyond a reasonable doubt, a false flag
operation. Consequently, one can characterize the forthcoming trial in United
States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al as a political show
trial, no different in effect – the wrongful execution of the defendants
and the attempted hoodwinking of the U.S. and world population – from
other political show trials in recent history.

This Examiner.com
article in the continuing 9/11 series examines the evidence for the use
of secret advanced directed energy weapons in the molecular
dissociation of the World Trade Center buildings into nanoparticles on
September 11, 2001. The article discusses the implications of this
evidence, in light of Andrew D. Basiago’s eyewitness evidence
that a secret DARPA time travel program, whose defense liaison was then
Nixon Cabinet Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was in physical possession
images of the World Trade Center 9/11 events in 1971, 30 years before
the actual events occurred on September 11, 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld, of
course, was U.S. Secretary of Defense on 9/11.

03/10/2010

Yes, this incidence is quite disturbing,
but on the other hand it may be a sign that those holding to "911
Official Story might think they need to do some counter attack against
uprising 911 Truth movements especially including Richard Gage's recent
actions. I truly believe it won't be long until the Truth will come out!
And this could be such an introduction.

We are
discussing right now to find how to take an action properly with Mr.
Fujita. I have attached the English translation from his recent blog
explaining what exactly happened then. It seems obvious that this WP
editorial staff intentionally set up the interview with Mr Fujita to get
his any words implying "911 is a hoax".

At 10:30 am on March 3, 2010, Lee Hockstader, Editorial
Writer for the Washington Post, visited myself (Yukihisa Fujita, member of the
House of Councillors, and Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) International
Department Director General) having made an interview request on the subject of
“Japan’s stance on and shifting attitudes toward immigration” via the Foreign
Press Center, Japan.(see the
attached interview request and questions)

1.The
requested interview time of one hour was spent discussing the current situation
relating to Japan’s response to immigration and my opinions on this issue.During the interview Hockstader typed my
comments into his laptop computer, as he had requested.However, once the one hour interview
had ended and Hockstader had closed his laptop, he mentioned as an aside that
he had noticed from my resume that I had raised the issue of the 9/11 terror
attacks in a Diet committee, and asked whether I had some doubts about this
issue.In response, I explained
the circumstances that led me to become involved in the 9/11 issue and pointed
out a number of points that still remained unexplained about the events of that
day.

2.In
other words, after answering questions on the agreed upon theme for around one
hour, I naturally responded to this question as being separate from the
interview itself.

3.Ms.
Fukasawa of the Foreign Press Center, Japan also attended the interview (DPJ
International Department Manager Ms. Uchida and Deputy Manager Ms. Burnicle
were also in attendance), and she confirmed that during his visit to Japan,
Hockstader did not conduct interviews on any other subject than immigration. (following
the interview, I received a letter of thanks from Foreign Press Center, Japan
President Terusuke Terada).The
entire interview was recorded and I intend to disclose the content of the
interview in due course.

4.As
stated in 1. above, this was an informal chat regarding 9/11 following the
actual interview itself.At no
point did I draw the conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I clearly
stated that I had never concluded that the collapse of the Twin Towers had been
a result of a controlled demolition.Rather, I stated I had made my speech in the Diet from the stance that
it was necessary to investigate the origins of the “War on Terror” from the
perspective of assisting the relatives of the victims of 9/11, and in relation
to the war in Afghanistan and the provision of humanitarian assistance.

5.Furthermore,
I have many American friends from various walks of life, and have worked for
many years to serve as a bridge between Japan and the United States, including
by providing assistance to former US POWs held captive by Japan.

6.I
currently serve as Senior Director of the Research Committee on International
Affairs and Global Warming Issues in the House of Councillors, but I was
introduced in the article as though I was the Chair of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.Moreover, the article
describes me as “a Brahmin in the foreign policy establishment” of Japan, while
in fact, as Director General of the Democratic Party of Japan’s International
Department, I am not involved in policy matters.I find it totally regrettable that this kind of biased
article should be published in the Washington Post.

Energy budget and molecular dissociation of the World Trade Center (WTC) by Independent scientist Leuren Moret

BERKELEY,
CA - Sound science is the only approach to understanding what happened
at the WTC on 911. The energy budget of molecular dissociation
required to "disappear" two tall buildings as they collapsed is the
answer to what happened on 911 at the WTC. Until the energy budget is
addressed, which would be required to turn two buildings into
nanoparticles (which are invisible and are permanently suspended in the
atmosphere), the discussion continues to be based on bathtub chemistry
and steam engine physics which will never give any answers to the
sophisticated and exotic energy technologies now available for "special
projects". Steven Jones told me in Vancouver at the 911 conference
that his particle samples came from within 25' of the WTC buildings.
Well anyone knows the settling velocity of particles is related to
size, and nanoparticles have such a small settling velocity that motion
of air particles keeps them permanently suspended - therefore Jones
samples are the BIG CHUNKS and the huge volume of nanoparticles
produced simply disappeared into thin air. He didn't even sample them
because it requires extremely sophisticated equipment such as charged
plates to collect them on... filters don't do it. The investigator
must have an advanced background in nanoparticle physics and quantum
dynamics... and that is the key to what happened at the WTC on 911.

I
am a Livermore lab whistleblower. I watched directed energy beam
experiments being conducted in the atmosphere, from the laser facility
at LLNL in the middle of the night, from my house in Livermore when I
was working at LLNL. Until space weapons capabilities and HAARP are
taken into consideration to explain the molecular dissociation (into
nanoparticles) of two very large buildings, as well as the 4th
generation nukes that were used to break down the structural integrity
of the buildings, then the answers are coming from a noisy room of
opinions. Opinions are not science. No one has explained the presence
of levels of uranium, tritium, and the presence of deuterium in the air
monitoring conducted and reported by Dr. Thomas Cahill for 5 months
after 911 at the WTC - which began after Oct. 5. He reported the
highest concentration of metals and nanoparticles ever measured in US
air samples. The question is, why did the Dept. of Energy (Steven Jones former
employer at Los Alamos nuke lab) ask Dr. Cahill to voluntarily do air
monitoring specifically AFTER Oct. 5, and why did DOE want that air
monitoring done for 5 months. Cahill received no funding for a very
expensive and extended study.

What we know from the Israeli
bombing of Lebanon with 5000 US depleted uranium bunker busters, is
that the bomb craters also had deuterium and high levels of U235
present as well as very high radiation reported for the first 3 weeks
which dropped off quickly because it was neutron activation products.
The 4th generation nukes that the US stuck into the bunker busters are
the size of matchboxes I was told by Dr. Chris Busby who had the bomb
crater samples tested at the British govt. radiation lab. So that
takes it back to the time gap from Sept. 11 to Oct. 5 when DOE did not
want air sampling data collected. Why?

The energy budget
required to destroy the integrity of the structure and the molecular
dissociation of two huge buildings has to be the focus of any
investigation of 911 at the WTC. So far it has not been considered.

Richard Syrett:
Judy Wood who is a very controversial person in the 9-11 truth
movement. She’s been sort of looked at as sort of the straw man in
terms of being sort of way out there on what some might (not
myself), what some might call the lunatic fringe in terms of her
theories in what might have brought down the Twin Towers. She
believes it was Starwars type technology, as Starwars as an SDI, as
Starwars as a particle beam, a beam energy laser type device .Speaker # 2 (Spkr 2): Wow.RS:
that brought down the Twin Towers. She will join us in the first hour
of the show, in the first half really. In the second half, Matthew
Connolly who is an assistant professor at Columbia University will be
here to talk about the myth of overpopulation and the struggle to
control world population for all the wrong reasons.(Skip some introductory dialog.) RS: This is the Richard Syrett show on News Talk 1010 CFRB.(Skip some unrelated dialog)RS:
Now, first off. A very compelling and controversial 90 minutes, I can
assure you. When I first came back to CFRB, every Monday night I did
a show dedicated to 9-11, and for various reasons, I didn’t have Dr.
Judy Wood on the program on any of those Mondays. I talked to Jim
Hoffman, I talked to James Fetzer, I talked to Barry Zwicker, Alex
Jones, of course, Jim Marrs why didn’t I talk to Judy Wood, and I think
maybe I was a little bit afraid of what she had to say because in some
quarters for those who cling to the official narrative of 9-11 that’s
been force fed to us like pabulum, Dr. Judy Wood presents them with
somewhat of a straw man’s argument. She’s held out there as being
way out there on the lunatic fringe. Did you see what Dr. Judy Wood
said last night. The Twin Towers were brought down by some sort of Star
Wars technology.’ Ha ha ha. And then I talked to people like John
Hutchison, the founder of the Hutchison Effect. And I talked to former
TV weatherman, Scott Stephens, who has dedicated his life investigating
extreme bizarre weather anomalies and scalar technology. I talked to
Joseph Farrow, author of Secrets of the Unified Field. And suddenly
what Dr.20Judy Wood has to say doesn’t seem so out there, and I’m
delighted to have her on the program and I’m thrilled that she agreed
to come on. Dr. Judy Wood, welcome to the Richard Syrett Show,
NewsTalk 1010, CFRB.Dr. Judy Wood (JW): Thank you very much for having me.RS: In that rather laborious introduction the idea that you’re obviously, I’m guessing, are
cognizant of the fact that some perceive you, maybe some even in the
9-11 truth movement are afraid of you because of what you have to
say. For them, let’s face it, it’s far more easier to digest the fact
that let’s say Steven Jones is correct, you know, that there were
prepositioned precision cutter charges placed in the World Trade Center
towers rather than this, you know, hocus pocus world of directed energy
weapons. Is that an accurate assessment, that you’ve been sort
of pigeon holed that way by both sides, those in the truth movement and
those outside it?JW: Yeah, but I don’t pay a lot of attention to that. I’m just looking for the truth and looking for what caused this horrendous event. It’s a pretty amazing event that happened. No matter which way you look at it, to have seven buildings go poof that day.RS: And we should. I failed to mention your credentials and they are significant. A mechanical engineer with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural
mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials
characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. You’re a
member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics, co-founded that
organization’s Biological and Systems Materials division, and you are
currently serving on that organization’s composite materials technical
division. And let’s plug the web site as well, www.DrJudyWood.com. RS: All right. We’ve got that out of the way.What is a directed energy weapon?JW: Well, my definition of it is energy that is directed and used as a weapon.RS: It’s that simple.JW: Yes, that’s my definition. And I use a very generalized definition because we don’t know what this gizmo is.
We don’t what the name of it is. It needs a category, and it’s not a
kinetic energy device. In other words, something doesn’t go boom with
chunks going flying. Something doesn’t physically do something by
contacting it. Energy is involved here.RS: And when we come back
because we’re going to break here a moment when we come back, I’ll get
you to explain I guess what the telltale signs were for you when you
looked at the images, the video, the stills, or the eyewitness
testimony. What were the telltale signs that told you a, this wasn’t
brought down by planes, b, they weren’t brought down as Steven Jones
contends â€“ prepositioned cutter charges.Judy Wood, Doctor Judy Wood, on the Richard Syrett Show. Stay with us on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.RS:
Dr. Judy wood is with us. This mechanical engineer believes that the
World Trade Center towers were brought down by a directed energy
weapon, whatever that might mean. Now before I get you to tell us
what the telltale signs were, Judy, the fingerprint here.. what is it
your contention that Building 7 as well as the north and south Towers
were brought down in this manner?

JW: Yes, and I just submitted some comments to NIST about that. Some pretty incriminating things.RS: You are involved currently in a federal suit against NIST, are you?JW: Correct. On their reports for Towers 1 and 2 well, the contractors for their reports for Towers 1 and 2.RS:
All right. Now, let’s delve in to the actual evidence here. When you
looked the images, the videos, the photographs, you heard the
testimony what led you to believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7
were brought down by a directed energy weapon and not commercial
aircraft or, as Steven Jones contends, some prepositioned cutter
charges?JW: Well first, let’s observe. The building. It went
away. There wasn’t enough rubble pile left. In a regular controlled
demolition, bombs in the building I call it, you end up with a rubble
pile with chunks, big chunks, little chunks, in-between size chunks.
You don’t end up with just solid powder. And also, there is heat
involved with that, and I saw no evidence of heat anywhere. Paper unburned. I think we all remember paper all over Manhattan.RS: Yes.JW:
Tons of it. This is bizarre. It is next to a car that appears to be
burning, but the paper is not burning. RS: Even with the initial
blast, would not some paper be jettisoned out of the windows in advance
of the flames, before the flames would have a chance to consume them?
I don’t know. I’m not an engineer.JW: Right. If paper shot out
the window, how much paper can there be? We didn’t really see paper
snowing out the window for the amount we see all over the place.RS: All right.JW: But, yes. It did get tossed out some of it RS: So in the absence of charred or the absence of heat JW:
didn’t see heat you just see a rubble pile at ground level the
rescue workers had to walk horizontally or rappel down into empty
caverns. RS: Yes, if the pancake theory were correct, and the idea
that one floor collapsed on another and the increasing weight you know
you would have like a stack of records for those who still remember
vinyl. You used to be able to stack four or five records on a player
and if they were all to collapse, you would have a pile four or five
records high. But you’re right, we didn’t see huge chunks. We
saw as if the actual building, each floor, before it was allowed to
collapse upon the next, was merely pulverized, pulverized into this
powder.JW: Right. And you could see it happening mid-air. You
see the steel I call them wheat chex, those prefab three-column-wide,
three fourths tall sections of the outer walls. They’re flying
through the air and they never hit the ground. It’s like they dissolve
or melt like ice cream on the way down. They just turn in to dust.
They trail dust, and there’s no big thuds. And that actually was
another clue. The ground shook for less than 8 seconds.RS: Okay. Why is that significant?JW: It takes 9.22 seconds to drop a ball of the roof and have it hit the pavement down below.RS: Okay. That’s yeah that’s pure Newtonian physics, right?JW: Right.RS: Freefall speed.JW: Right, but the ground only shook for 8 seconds or less.RS: You mean the building collapsed in 8 seconds?JW: The ground shook.RS: Okay. I’m not sure why that is significant.JW: Well, I’m not saying it collapsed. It went away.RS: Ah. Okay. I see what you’re JW: It went poof. It went away.RS: The evidence that the ground did not shake for more than 8 seconds according to the Columbia University seismology lab. And that seems pretty bizarre, you know, for this quarter mile tall building.RS: So let’s assume you say it went away if it were to have collapse, it would had to have collapse certainly in no less than freefall speed, which
would be remarkable in itself, and that’s 9.2 seconds, but actually the
ground only shook for 8.8 seconds, which is greater than freefall
speed. You’re saying that according to Newtonian laws, that is
absolutely physically impossible.JW: If it were to collapse in that amount of time.RS: Yes, it were to have collapsed. Yes.JW: But you know that powder doesn’t make a thud when it hits.RS: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Ah. Yes. Okay.JW: So the upper floors maybe they were one hundred percent turned to powder, and so it was the lower floors where actually anything hit the ground. If you look around the adjacent buildings, you
don’t see any I call them stab wounds you know, pieces of projectiles
going through windows and so forth above the eighteenth floor. Out of
110 stories, you only have falling debris hitting buildings up to the
eighteenth floor.RS: So is it possible that the first 18 floors
were brought down by cutter charges and the remaining floors were
brought down by directed energy. Is that what you are suggesting?JW:
No, I don’t think you know why worry about starting a fire under water
when you don’t need to it just makes it harder. It’s not impossible;
it just makes the job harder because you have more unknowns than you
need. If you’re using one thing, why use something else?RS:
Understood. Let me take a time out here. We’ve got news waiting at
the bottom of the hour. Dr. Judy Wood is with us and we are continuing
to discuss whether or not a direct energy weapon was responsible for
the North, South and Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex. The
Richard Syrett Show on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.BREAKRS: Dr. Judy Wood is with us. She believes that directed energy weapons were responsible for bringing down the
north and south Towers plus Building 7 on 9-11. Let’s go back to our
discussion, Judy, some of the telltale signs. You mentioned lack of
heat. We had plumes of paper being ejected from windows, landing on
the street and none of them were on fire or burning. We have the lack
of scarring around the World Trade Center complex, that is, you know,
large projectiles being thrown out of the building and then impacting,
you know, the other buildings, surrounding buildings, above the
eighteenth floor.JW: And there’s the seismograph information. The
ground didn’t shake for more than 8 seconds. Even more so, the impact
it made was equivalent to the bottom 20 stories of Tower 1 and the
bottom 16 stories of Tower 2.RS: So in other words, as you say, the top 90 plus floors simply disappeared, went away.JW: Right.RS: Okay. Any other telltale signs before we move on.JW:
Yes, there are the toasted cars. I call them toasted cars. They’re
toasted as in their history’, not necessarily cooked. I use unique
terms when I don’t know the exact phenomenon and don’t want to bias my
observations. I just assign a name. Okay. Toasted cars. They’re
totaled. They’re toast.RS: Okay.JW: They looked scorched and there’s paper next to them that is not burning. The cars are glowing. And
whatever it is, it seems to like engine blocks more than the sides of a
car. It like door handles. So if you showed me a car from a regular
car fire and a car from 9-11, I could tell the difference.RS: It likes door handles and engine blocks but not necessa rily the skin of the car.JW: Right.RS: That’s interesting. All right.JW: And it also removes the windshields. There’s absolutely not a trace of windshields left.RS: It melts them?JW: Well, they’re just gone. Maybe they turned to dust.RS: OkayJW:
Like the marble facade in front on WFC 1, 2, and 3. Those are the
buildings on the west side of the street. All the marble just
disappeared off the facade.RS: It just disappeared.JW: Yes, it’s gone, just the marble.RS: Was it pulverized or you mean there’s no accounting for it whatsoever? No trace of even powder?JW:
I don’t know if powder was there or not. You look at the pictures and
all that facade is gone. Just the marble facade, not the rest of the
building.RS: Okay.JW: And also the windows. There are
circular holes, the windows. And I think we all know you throw a
baseball through a window, it doesn’t make a round hole.RS: No, it just breaks the entire pane of glass or it leaves a jagged top or bottom or some portion of JW: a spider web looking thing.RS: Okay. Circular holes where?JW: In adjacent buildings across the street.RS: Okay, that’s interesting.JW: In WFC buildings, there are round holes.RS: A lot of them? Dozens? Hundreds?JW: Yes. Breakage is kind of strange. Or if the building had double pane windows, one of the panes was gone, but the other pane wasn’t.RS:
All right. This is all very interesting and it is perplexing these
phenomena that you’re talking about, but how does that in your mind add
up to directed energy?JW: Well, lots of __?____waves do that to
windows. But if you look at one more. I guess there are two ah ha
moments. One was this cop car over on FDR Drive. With my background
in interferometry, the pattern I saw on the car reminded me of
constructed or destructed interference.RS: Okay. Those are very
big words and someone who got through basically grade 11 science First
of all, your back ground in interferometry ?JW: Interferometry.RS: Interferometry. What is that?JW:
Interfering beams of lights. If you interfere two coherent beams of
light, you get walls of constructive and=2 0destructive interference.
__?__In space, you have light / dark, light / dark, and then sinusoidal
shades in between.RS: So the pattern on the squad car on FDR drive shows you what?JW:
That it was something that would be explained by interferometry where
it looks toasted one place and one millimeter to the right it’s in
pristine condition with a new wax job.RS: Okay.JW: it’s things like that that wouldn’t exist in a regular car fire.RS: No, I wouldn’t think so as a lay person. All right. Another break awaits.BREAKRS:
Directed energy weapons. Was such a device used to bring town the
World Trade Center towers, Building 7, the north and south Towers. Dr.
Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, believes it happened just that
way. Now the only question for me is, because for many of you listening
now, you may be thinking wow, you know what, this is getting too far
out there. We’re talking about what is it - Star Wars. Come on now.’ But
the only question that we need to answer really is - Is this technology
possible and does somebody possess it, and everything else falls in
line from there?’And before we get to that, what kind of energy
source are we looking at here that would be able to do something like
this. Pulverizing some 200 floors plus Building 7, we haven’t
accounted for that 200 floors into a fine dust? What kind of energy
source? What kind of power would be needed, Dr. Judy Wood?JW:
It’s the kind of power, the kind of effect, not the magnitude of it.
One more feature that was really ground breaking for me, pun intended
maybe, is that when the dust fell, it was coarse, it landed, and then
began breaking down further, and became so fine it started wafting up.JS: How do you know that?JW:
Pictures. Fifteen minutes after Tower 1 went poof, just north of
Tower, you’re up wind, you see a clear blue sky and the dust has
landed, but then now you see stuff start to come up. That fine of dust
could not have landed already.RS: Ah. Interesting. So it fell to the ground in a coarse manner and then continued to break down once it hit the ground.JW:
Right. So that’s a really weird process. It’s not like you put an
energy beam and fry it. That’s the biggest misconception.RS: Ah. Have you seen anything like this before?JW: Yes, and I think you have too. I started looking for what could cause this and I came upon the work of John Hutchison RS: Yes.JW:
and he does this on a very small scale, just goofing around, not,
definitely not anything in terms of weapons. But the U.S. government
has entered his lab and videotaped it for four months in 1983, I
believe.RS: Yes, the Hutchison Effect for those who are not aware
we’ve had John on the show many times. He was unceremoniously removed
from his apartment / lab in, I guess, New Westminster, British
Columbia. Was he stumbled upon some sort of effect that could bend
metal bars, that could levitate heavy objects, all at essentially the
flip of a switch? Using well I guess, his lab looks like a Nicola
Tesla garage sale So what do you mean that you’ve see this with John
Hutchison’s Effect.JW: He is of course well known for levitation,
and if you look around the World Trade Center, you see flipped cars
next to trees that are fully covered with leaves.RS: That’s not possible?JW:
It’s pretty strange to see cars in the right place, just upside down.
It was quite a few of those and if it was a big gust of wind, I don’t
think it would have tossed cars over without, you know, at least
scarring them up some.RS: Ah. Understood.JW: It just looks like they’re parked upside down.RS: Oh, 20I see. They’re perfectly pristine but they’re upside down.JW: Right. There is one of them where its underside looks like it’s from the showroom floor. It looks like a brand new car.RS: Interesting. Okay JW:
It was the upside down cars that were in good shape, and the cars that
were right side up were toasted. And there was something that caught
my eye in reading up about John Hutchison’s work is that you get lift
or disruption. In other words, the molecules either can come apart or
they tear themselves apart.RS: Those are the two effects that he reported using when he engaged his device JW:
This is what others have reported about his work. The disruption
meaning that the metal, you know, starts doing something funny.RS: It either bends or I think in some cases, yes, it became rubbery or very brittle and just smashed apart.JW: Right.RS: Okay. So you saw traces of this at the crime scene, so to speak?JW: All of the various phenomena, I listed at the crime scene I had done that first, and
then I found Hutchison’s work and said oh my gosh it’s just a
one-to-one correlation.’ And so there’s an article about that on my web
site where it’s comparing, you know, my photos from Ground Zero and
then John’s stuff. It’s a one-to-one match.RS: DrJudyWood.com
DrJudyWood.com Okay, so you say again it’s not necessarily that the
amount of power behind such a device, it’s the type of device or weapon
itself. So what are we talking here then?JW: Well, field effects.RS: Field effects, as in the unified field’?JW: Yes.RS: Ah.JW:
There are various types of fields that can interfere and if you look at
what John Hutchison does, it’s different kind of fields that he
interferes.RS: All right. We need to take another time out. We’ll come back and one again we just talked about the unified field with Joseph Farrow we may be heading
back down to some familiar territory here, and this is getting very
very interesting. If you got a line, please hold on to it. I will
warn you it will probably be right after the news at eleven o’clock, and if you haven’t jumped on board, please do so (416) 872-1010, StarTalk Star 8255 toll-free from out of town 1-800 -561 CFRB , the Richard Syrett Show along with Dr. Judy Wood. Stay with us on NewsTalk 1010.BREAKRS: Welcome back. Dr. Judy Wood is with us. It is her theory that the Twin Towers and Building
7 were brought down by a directed energy weapon, not prepositioned
cutter charges, as Steven Jones contends or using thermite. Let’s
work in a call because we’re coming up on the news at the top of the
hour and I want to get some input here from people. What do you think
of what Dr. Judy Wood is saying? Jim is in Toronto. Good evening, welcome to News Talk 1010.Caller
Jim in Toronto: Good evening Richard and to Judy. Judy, I saw a
documentary on military hardware, modern versions of hardware which is
absolutely fantastic, and what you’re talking about was in the
actual documentary, and they had an aircraft on remote control flying
and they fired this weapon. Now you only see the left side, or the
right side of the individual, the army person doing the testing, and it
just broke the aircraft in pieces. They did the same thing on a
missile that was just on the launch. It did the same thing. It broke
in pieces. What puzzles me is what you’re saying there it sounds like
they must have had it set up inside and outside in the third
building20that went down, just to eliminate the evidence of what was
going on, which comes to what you’re talking about. JW: Well, I
am saying that there are field effects. There’s interference of
different energy forms in that region, not necessarily something fired
from like a gun.RS: Are we talking again about Einstein’s Unified Field theory, some aspect of that?JW:
Yes, and the fields that John Hutchison interferes there’s something
very similar to that that was present in New York City, in the area on
9-11.RS: Now when you say interferes you mean as in the old Scott Stephens, the former weather man from Poncatello, Idaho, who is now with WeatherWars.info says just like in Ghostbusters don’t cross the beams. You cross the beams and that creates interference waves? JW:
Right, depends on what types of beams, at what angles and what
strengths and so forth. Yes, it’s interfering different beams will do
something extraordinary.RS: So this technology this is just not
theoretical I mean Einstein was talking about this, what, a hundred
years ago. I know that people like Nicola Tesla sort of picked up on
it and others. But you’re saying that this is not theoretical. They have harnessed this technology and they have weaponized it. Do we know this for a fact?JW:
Well, I know that the technology exists because I saw it. Now John
Hutchison but again, John Hutchison never would use it as a weapon.RS: And obviously at a much smaller scale so somebody must have perfected it.JW: Now to supersize it, we need a huge Tesla Coil.RS:
All right. We will supersize it when we come back. We’ve got news at
the top of the hour. Dr. Judy Wood stays with us. Now DrJudyWood.com
is the web site and we’ll also tell you how you can get involved in
perhaps demanding a new 9-11 investigation. That and much more in my conversation with Dr. Judy Wood when the Richard Syrett Show continues. Stay with us here on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.BREAKRS: Right now, we continue to speak with Dr. Judy Wood, mechanical engineer, with
research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural
mechanics, and optical methods. We’re talking about the possibility
that directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers on 9-11. Interesting
quote here sent to me by a listener. It’s incredibly apropos so I’ll
share it with you now. This death beam, Dr. Tesla said, will operate
silently but effectively at distances as far as a telescope could
see an object on the ground and as far as the curvature of the earth
would permit it. It will be invisible and will leave no marks behind
it beyond evidence of destruction. An army of one million dead
annihilated in an instant, he said, would never reveal, could not
reveal even under the most powerful microscope just what catastrophe
had caused its destruction. I thank you to Amy for sending that in.
Dr. Judy Wood, we’re talking about a Tesla type death beam in your
estimation?JW: I don’t know about a death beam, but an energy field of some sort and about supersizing it.RS: Yes. Tesla coils. We’ve seen the Tesla coils for those who have looked at pictures of John Hutchison’s former lab in British Columbia. He had Tesla Coils. So we’re talking about very large Tesla coils.JW:
Well, if you look at a big Tesla coil, it’s got this big donut-shaped
thing on the top and then a column with wires wrapped around it going
up to it. It looks very much like the structure of a hurricane.RS: Yes.JW: Did you know that there was a very large hurricane right outside of New York City on 9-11?RS: I had not heard that.JW:
It was known to be even bigger than Katrina and was aimed right for New
York City. For four days, it was going northwest, past Bermuda,
heading straight for New York City, stopped right outside of New York
City on the morning of 9-11, made a U turn, headed out of town that
afternoon.RS: All right. That’s interesting. Hurricanes don’t normally come anywhere near that vicinity.JW: And for no one to have been told. I’ve got the snapshots from the morning news. They show that area of the ocean, but it doesn’t show this, you know, this big pinwheel that should be out there.RS: I missed that report. Where did you get that report, that there was a hurricane headed for New York on the morning of 9-11?JW:
I was looking at the plume, the nature of the plume, and decided I
wanted some, you know, some better pictures from up above, and went
looking for weather satellite images, and oh my gosh, what is this
thing?’RS: How far off shore?JW: Oh, well, the outer bands were at the end of Long Island and on Cape Cod. RS: And this was, you’re saying, was what have you had a meteorologist look at it to determine are we talking about Category 5, 4?JW: It was a 3 the day before, and it had been downgraded but it spread out, like
a figure skater puts their arms out and they slow down. It had spread
out to, you know, five and a fourth miles in diameter.RS: Is that the fingerprint. Is that the fingerprint of the energy weapon?JW:
Well, I believe it’s part of it. Did you know there was thunder
reported at JFK airport, Newark airport, and LaGuardia airport? All
sides, you know, of Manhattan. RS: Thunder?JW: Thunder. And RS: And I’m guessing if I think back to that day that it was a pretty clear day.JW: Right. It was dry thunder.RS: And those reports come from?JW: The National Weather Service.RS: They reported thunder?JW: Yes, I’m sorry, those were airport reports.RS: Okay.JW: the individual airports.RS: All right. So you add these things up I mean, a hurricane 500 miles off shore JW: no, 500 miles in diameter RS: Oh, sorry, 500 miles in diameter JW:
It was about 500 miles off shore, the eye of it, but, you know the
outer bands, but the field effects reach outside of the outer bands.RS: Okay.JW: We can sense a storm coming, especially people with arthritis, they feel it.RS: Sure.JW: They sense the field effects. So the fact that there is thunder in the vicinity all around Manhattan, that was enough to say that there are field effects there.RS: Now, the hurricane that was offshore, would that be as a result of the activation of this directed energy weapon or ?JW: I believe it was part of it. It’s the big Tesla coil.RS: Does that mean that it was coming from that direction?JW: I believe that the hurricane, however it was there, and I believe it was manufactured, that it was creating part of the field.RS: The hurricane was creating part of the field?JW: Yes, the field effect from the hurricane were part of the field.RS: So then how but a hurricane is a huge storm and how would that be directed on three buildings within the World Trade Center complex?JW: Like when John Hutchison does his work, he interferes different types of energy fields.RS: Okay.JW:
And if you have exquisite control you know, you have several different
energy fields interfering, and then you can get a trigger beam that
will set it off in a particular place.RS: A trigger beam JW: Yes, a trigger beam, you know, the field effects within an area and then they need just one last little component, and then, boom, there goes something, or, I believe the _______?building?__ was disintegrated over time..RS: like taking a magnet and focusing the sun’s rays on a particular location?JW: Or any catalyst. ..? . a catalyst that’s already there. You’re thinking ?....potentially between two plates. You know, it’s ready to arc and you just one little something in between and boom, there goes the arc.RS: This again, not theoretical. You’ve seen it in a smaller scale in Hutchison’s lab, but is it possible that someone would have this technology on such a large scale? Is it technically possible?JW: Well, if this thing was designed if they, you know, however that hurricane got there, and the fact that we weren’t told about this hurricane had the potential of, you know, large storm surges, and if it goes right outside New York City and parks there. Manhattan is what, twenty feet about the water table RS: Yes.JW: It’s going to get flood out. Aren’t you going to tell people they need to evacuate in case the hurricane comes ashore?RS: Right.JW:
So that to me, you know, confirms that there is some kind of weather
control, to be so confident that you don’t need to alert people.RS: Have you talked to Scott Stephens about this? Do you know Scott Stephens?JW: No. I know of him.RS:
WeatherWars.info I mean he’s talking about just exactly this using,
I guess, scalar technology. Is that the appropriate term here? Scalar?JW: It could be. I’m not that familiar with exactly how they make these hurricanes, but they’re too organized and I think there’s something about the eye the pentagon shape?RS: Yes, that’s exactly right. He talks about the geometric patterns within these storms. I mean he basically delivered his last weather cast in Pocotello Idaho back in 2005. Once
he woke up to what was going on and what kind of technology they had,
and now he just sees, again, the telltale signs of manufactured weather
everywhere. I mean not just the big things he says they’re not just
doing the big things. They’re doing everything.RS: You ought to
check my website. The Erinseries. Hurricane Erin was the name of it.
E R I N. It goes there just like it went up to a chalk line. Stops,
makes a U turn and then heads back out of town.RS: DrJudyWood.com All Right. One final time, I’ll come back and talk a little bit more about, this is absolutely mind blowing. Directed energy weapons. Did they bring down the Twin Towers.Back with more of the Richard Syrett Show, NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.BREAKRS:
When Carlos Allende was crossing the Atlantic on his way to Algiers in
October of 1943, he and at least a thousand men witnessed the USS
Eldridge become invisible to the human eye, not to radar, to the human
eye. That was the source of the legend of the Philadelphia Experiment,
also known as Project Rainbow. Now, think of it, if they could do that
in 1943, and we’re not talking about the rumors of teleportation let’s
assume that didn’t happen, but if it simply became invisible to the
human eye If they could do that in 1943, my word, what kind of
technology do they have 65 years later? It would be mind boggling. I
don’t think our imagination could even fathom what the powers that be
have. Do they have a directed energy weapon utilizing giant Tesla
coils to create hurricanes and also make the Twin Towers disappear? Dr. Judy Wood says so.Let’s grab a quick call before we say goodnight to Judy and Jim in Otobico. Welcome to NewsTalk 1010 CFRB.Caller Jim in Otobico: Hi Richard. How are you guys doing? Another phenomenal show.RS: Thank youCaller
Jim: Richard, I’m just curious your guest from about a week ago and
you’re the gentleman was talking about 9-11 and he was talking about
the fact that the towers were shut down by Marvin Bush’s security firm
on the 8th and the 9th, and there are two questions I have, really.
One, do you think this igniter, I guess, could be potentially set up in
those two days when the buildings were shut down and completely in
their control with no access by anybody else? And also, if so, what was
the size or the category size of this hurricane that was offshore at
New York? I’ll take the answer offline.RS: All right. Thank you, Jim. Judy?JW:
The hurricane was a Category 3 but it had been downgraded that morning
because it slowed down, but it was bigger for the overall energy, you
know, larger area. One other thing I’d like to mention is there’s an
abrupt shift in the earth’s magnetic field with each of the events on
9-11, a build-up, a change in the magnetometer readings, and an abrupt
change of direction of those curves. That’s kind of interesting too.RS: And that’s probably worthy of another half an hour which we don’t have. I do want to give you a little bit of time to talk about on DrJudyWood.com, sort of a clarion call for people interested in launching another 9-11 investigation. I know there are those up here in Canada that would like to see that, but what are you trying to do down in the States?JW: Well, I am conducting an investigation and I’ve taken legal action as well.RS: You’re taking this to court?JW:
Yes, well the contractors for NIST who helped in the cover up of this
horrendous crime, and some of these contractors are manufacturers of
directed energy weapons.RS: And how do you know that.JW: It’s on their websitesRS: Ah.JW: Their test facilities, their, you know, warehouse.RS: How can people help you?JW: Gee, write to me and ask. Let it be known what’s going on.RS: All right, but in terms of your legal case, this is costing money, I’m guessing.JW: Yes. Yes.RS: Who’s helping you with that? JW: Nobody so far. Well, a couple of people have, small scale, but yes anything would be very helpful there.RS: So again, it’s DrJudyWood.com.JW:
And at the top of that web page, there is about the legal case and if
you go to that page, there’s a data entry thing where you can email
that way or contact me.RS: All right, and when is that legal case supposed to happen?JW: Well, it’s ongoing. There are different activities happening in it right now.RS: All right. Listen, I know that you’ll probably be in the midst of it later next month. That’s why we had you on tonight. I thank you for your time. I’m
hoping that we can talk again=2 0before Christmas and get maybe some
details in how this case is going. I wish the best of luck. You’re a
brave woman. This information is absolutely mind blowing and not
easily dismissedJW: Thanks.)

To appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article
III(3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these
United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the
acts of treason, as defined in Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution,
by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or causing to be carried
out an armed attack upon these United States on September 11, 2001, as
part of a strategic deception operation.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT:There
is a sufficient legal threshold of evidence to issue an indictment for
the crime of Treason against the above-named individuals under the US
Constitution, which in Article III(3) provides: "Sect. 3. Treason
against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession in open court."

MEMORANDUM

The September 11, 2001 Attacks as Acts of Treason under Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 3, says that
it is treason for a citizen of the USA to engage in “levying war”
against the United States. If U.S. citizens consciously participated in
planning the attacks of 9/11 on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, this participation would clearly be treasonous. There is
considerable prima facie evidence that named members of the U.S.
Executive Branch---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld---participated in this planning.

This prima facie evidence sustains a constitutional, Joint
Resolution of the U.S. Congress to appoint an Independent Prosecutor
under the authority of Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution to
prosecute Treason against these United States of America by U.S.
President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other John and Jane Does
for planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in
Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out,
carrying out, and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon
these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic
deception operation.

An investigation of these acts of prima facie Treason was not
carried out by the 9/11 Commission. This Commission, directed by an
insider, Philip Zelikow, who was directly connected to the named U.S.
President George W. Bush of the U.S. Executive Branch, took as its
starting point the Bush-Cheney administration’s claim that the attacks
were planned and carried out entirely by members of al-Qaeda. The
Commission examined only facts and allegations that were consistent
with this theory.

All evidence pointing to complicity by the named individuals---U.S.
President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---along with other John and
Jane Does, was ignored or, in a few cases, distorted. The U.S. Congress
in its constitutional jurisdiction needs to authorize the appointment
of an independent prosecutor to conduct a genuine investigation of this
prima facie evidence of Treason under Article III(3) of the U.S.
Constitution, which is summarized below in terms of six questions.

I. How Could Hijacked Airliners Have Struck the WTC and the Pentagon?

If the standard operating procedure of the FAA and the US military
had been carried out on the morning of 9/11, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight
175 would have been intercepted before they reached Manhattan, and
Flight 77 would have been intercepted long before it could have reached
the Pentagon. (Such interceptions are routine, being carried out about
100 times a year.) As to why these interceptions did not occur, the
public has never been given a plausible explanation. Indeed, we have
received three mutually inconsistent stories.

In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter
jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at
9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 had been hijacked were observed
at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur
within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any
fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down”
order had been issued.

Within a few days, a second story was put out, according to
which NORAD had sent up fighters but, because FAA notification had
unaccountably come very late, the fighters did not arrive soon enough
to prevent the attacks. Critics showed, however, that even if the FAA’s
notifications had come as late as NORAD claimed, there would have been
time for interceptions to occur. This second story did not, therefore,
remove the suspicion that a stand-down order had been given.

The 9/11 Commission Report gives a third account, according to
which, contrary to NORAD’s timeline of September 18, 2001, the FAA did
not notify NORAD about Flights 175 and 77 until after they had struck
their targets. This third story, besides contradicting the second story
and also considerable evidence that the FAA had notified the military
in a timely manner, contains many inherent implausibilities. It does
not, accordingly, remove grounds for suspicion that a stand-down order
had been issued---a suspicion for which there is ear-witness testimony.

II. Why Did the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the WTC Collapse?

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice
President Richard B. Cheney has also failed to provide a credible
explanation of the total collapses of the World Trade Center buildings.
According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers collapsed
because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat from the ensuing
fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems.

First, Building 7 also collapsed, and in about the same
way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed because
of the same causes. But building 7 was not hit by a plane, so its
collapse must be explained by fire alone. That would lead to the
conclusion that all three buildings collapsed from fire alone.

Second, however, the fires in these three buildings were not very
big, very hot, or very long-lasting, compared with fires in some
steel-frame high-rises that did not induce collapses. In 1991, for
example, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, and in 2004, a
fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither of these fires
resulted in even a partial collapse, let alone a total collapse. By
contrast, the World Trade Center’s north and south towers burned only
102 and 56 minutes, respectively, before they collapsed. Building 7,
moreover, had fires on only a few floors, according to some witnesses
and all the photographic evidence.

Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have
never, either before or after 9/11, been brought about by fire alone,
or fire combined with structural damage from airplanes. All such
collapses have been caused by explosives in the procedure known as
“controlled demolition.”

Fourth, the collapses of these three WTC buildings all manifested
many standard features of controlled demolition, such as: sudden onset
(whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag);
straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over); collapse at
virtually free-fall speed (indicating that the lower floors were
offering little if any resistance); total collapse (indicating that the
massive steel columns in the core of each building had been sliced into
many pieces---which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions);
the production of molten steel; and the occurrence of multiple
explosions, as reported by dozens of people---including journalists,
police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and
firefighters. The official theory cannot explain one, let alone all, of
these features---at least, as physicist Steven Jones has pointed out,
without violating several basic laws of physics. But the theory of
controlled demolition easily explains them all.

Fifth, although the question of whether explosives were used could
have been answered by examining the buildings’ steel columns, virtually
all of the steel was immediately sold to scrap dealers, trucked away,
and sent to Asia to be melted down. Moreover, although it is usually a
federal crime to remove anything from a crime scene, in this case the
removal was overseen by government officials. Sixth, al-Qaeda
terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for the
enormous number of hours it would have taken to plant the explosives.
But the question of how agents of the Bush-Cheney administration could
have gotten such access can be answered by pointing out that Marvin
Bush and Wirt Walker III---the president’s brother and cousin,
respectively---were principals of the company in charge of security for
the WTC. It is also doubtful that al-Qaeda terrorists would have had
the courtesy to ensure that the buildings would come straight down,
rather than falling over onto other buildings.

III. Could the Official Account of the Pentagon Possibly Be True?

According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA
Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. This
account is challenged by many facts.

First, Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the
mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes, even
though it was then known that hijacked airliners were being used as
weapons and even though the US military has the best radar systems in
the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in
North American airspace.”

Second, the aircraft, in order to hit the west wing, reportedly
executed a 270-degree downward spiral, which according to some experts
would have been impossible for a Boeing 757. Hanjour, moreover, was
known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.

Third, how could a pilot as poor as Hanjour have found his way back to Washington without guidance from the ground?

Fourth, the Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the
planet. It is not only within the P-56-A restricted air space that
extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, but
also within P-56-B, the three-mile ultra-restricted zone above the
White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. It is only a few miles from
Andrews Air Force Base, which, assigned to protect these restricted
zones, has at least three squadrons with fighter jets on alert at all
times. (The claim by The 9/11 Commission Report that no fighters were
on alert the morning of 9/11 is wholly implausible.) Also, the Pentagon
is surely protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles, which are
programmed to destroy any aircraft without a US military transponder
entering the Pentagon’s airspace. (So even if Flight 77 had entered the
Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if
officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses.)

Fifth, terrorists brilliant enough to get through the US
military’s defense system would not have struck the west wing, for many
reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a
strike anywhere else would have been; it was still being renovated, so
relatively few people were there; the secretary of defense and all the
top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were
in the east wing; and hitting the west wing required a difficult
maneuver, whereas crashing into the roof would have been easier and
deadlier.

Sixth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that
struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. For one thing, unlike
the strikes on the Twin Towers, the strike on the Pentagon did not
create a detectable seismic signal. Also, the kind of damage and debris
that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not
produced by the strike on the Pentagon, according to both photographs
and eyewitnesses. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force
Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of “a strange lack
of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments
after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.”
Photographs show that the façade of the west wing remained standing for
30 minutes after the strike and that, during this time, the hole in
this façade was only about 16 to 18 feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 has
a wingspan of about 125 feet, and a steel engine is mounted on each
wing. And yet there was, as Former Air Force Colonel George Nelson has
pointed out, no visible damage on either side of this hole. Former
pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing both debris and damage on the basis of
the photographic evidence, writes: “there is no doubt that a plane did
not hit the Pentagon. There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . .
. There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The
pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. . . .
There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757
‘crash.’”

Additional evidence that no large airliner hit the west wing is
provided by the fact that the fourth-floor office of Isabelle Slifer,
which was directly above the strike zone (between the first and second
floors), was not damaged by the initial impact.

There is considerable evidence, moreover, that the aircraft that
struck the Pentagon was instead a US military missile. This evidence
consists partly of testimony. Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: “I
was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing
like an airplane.” The upper management official at LAX, quoted earlier
as saying that he overheard members of LAX Security receiving word of a
stand-down order, says that they later received word that “the Pentagon
had been hit by a rocket.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an
apparent slip of the tongue, referred in an interview to “the missile
[used] to damage this building.”

The missile hypothesis is also supported by physical evidence. Dr.
Janette Sherman of Alexandria reports that shortly after the strike her
Geiger counter showed the radiation level, about 12 miles downwind from
the Pentagon, to be 8-10 times higher than normal. Two days later, Bill
Bellinger, the EPA radiation expert for the region, said that the
rubble at the crash site was radioactive, adding that he believed the
source to be depleted uranium. These findings are what one would
expect, says Dr. Leuren Moret---formerly a scientist at the Livermore
Nuclear Weapons Laboratory---if the Pentagon had been struck by a
military missile with a depleted uranium warhead.

On the basis of all this evidence, retired Army Major Doug Rokke has
said: “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void
of airplane parts [and] the size of the hole left in the building . . .
, it looks like the work of a missile.”

A seventh reason to be dubious about the official story is that
evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents
picked up debris from the Pentagon in front of the impact site, put it
in a large container, and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire
lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, with the result that any
remaining forensic evidence was covered up. FBI agents also immediately
confiscated the videos from security cameras on two nearby buildings.
Although the Department of Justice, responding to a request under the
Freedom of Information Act, has acknowledged the FBI’s possession of at
least one of these videos, the DoJ has refused to release it. These
seven problems, besides challenging the official account, collectively
indicate that the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces
within our own government---an act that would clearly constitute
treason.

IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents Remain at the School?

President George W. Bush reportedly believed, upon hearing that a
plane had struck one of the Twin Towers, that it was an accident. It
was not terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead with
the photo-op at the school in Sarasota. Word of the second strike,
however, should have indicated to him and his Secret Service
agents---assuming the truth of official story, according to which these
strikes were unexpected---that the country was undergoing an
unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the Secret Service allowed him
to remain at the school for another half hour.

This behavior was very strange. The president’s location had
been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed unexpected, the
Secret Service would have had no idea how many planes had been
hijacked, and they would have had to assume that the president himself
might be one of the targets: What could be more satisfying to foreign
terrorists attacking high-value targets in the United States than to
kill the president? For all the Secret Service would have known, a
hijacked airliner might have been bearing down on the school at that
very minute, ready to crash into it, killing the president and everyone
else there---including the Secret Service agents themselves. It is, in
any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service to rush the
president to a safe location whenever there is any sign that he may be
in danger. And yet these agents, besides allowing the president to
remain in the classroom another 10 minutes, permitted him to speak on
television, thereby announcing to the world that he was still at the
school.

Would not this behavior be explainable only if Bush and the head of
the Secret Service detail knew that the planned attacks did not include
an attack on the president? And how could this have been known for
certain unless the attacks were being carried out by people within our
own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking these questions,
was content to report that “[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did
not think it imperative for [the president] to run out the door.” A
serious inquiry into this matter, therefore, remains to be made.

V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President Cheney?

One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the fact that
the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie about the time of two
of his activities: his entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations
Center (PEOC) under the White House and his giving the order to shoot
down any unauthorized airplanes.

It had been widely reported that Cheney had gone down to the
PEOC shortly after the second strike on the WTC, hence about 9:15. The
most compelling witness was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta,
who testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he arrived at the PEOC
at 9:20, Cheney was already there and fully in charge. The 9/11
Commission Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC
until “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” Mineta’s testimony,
given in an open hearing, was simply omitted from the Commission’s
final report. Why would the Commission go to such lengths to conceal
the true time of Cheney’s entry into the PEOC?

One possible reason would involve the content of Mineta’s testimony. He said:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon,
there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President,
“The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it
got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the
Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President . .
. said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to
the contrary?”

Mineta said that this conversation---evidently meaning the final exchange---occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.

This testimony creates a problem for the official story. Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining why the Pentagon was not
evacuated before it was struck, claimed that “[t]he Pentagon was simply
not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.” The 9/11 Commission
claimed that there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft
heading towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only “one or two
minutes” before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. Mineta’s account,
however, says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than
10 minutes earlier. There would have been over 12 minutes for the
Pentagon to be evacuated.

Mineta’s account also seems to suggest that Cheney had issued
stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation, saying
instead that he assumed that “the orders” were to have the plane shot
down. But besides the fact that that interpretation does not fit what
actually happened--the aircraft was not shot down---it would make the
story unintelligible: The question whether the orders still stood would
not make sense unless they were orders to do something unexpected---not
to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting Mineta’s testimony and stating
that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11
Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order
to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon.

The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also important to the
controversy over whether the US military shot down Flight 93. The 9/11
Commission, simply ignoring a vast amount of evidence that the military
did so, supported the official claim that it did not. The Commission
provided this support by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at
the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down order until
after 10:10---which would have been seven or more minutes after Flight
93 had crashed (at 10:03). But in addition to the evidence that Cheney
had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, we also have
evidence---including statements from Richard Clarke and Colonel Robert
Marr, the head of NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS)---that Cheney’s
shoot-down order was issued well before 10:00.

The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s activities
give reason to suspect that it, under the leadership of Philip Zelikow,
was trying to conceal Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike
and the downing of Flight 93.

VI. Did Members of the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Reasons to Desire the Attacks of 9/11?

Besides having the means and opportunity to orchestrate the events
of 9/11 and their subsequent cover-up, high officials in the
Bush-Cheney administration would also have had motives.

Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard,
had said that establishing military bases in Central Asia would be
crucial for maintaining “American primacy,” partly because of the huge
oil reserves around the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added,
“is inimical to imperial mobilization.” Brzezinski, explaining that the
public had “supported America’s engagement in World War II largely
because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,”
suggested that Americans today would support the needed military
operations in Central Asia only “in the circumstance of a truly massive
and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Support for these operations was generated by 9/11 plus the claim by
the Bush-Cheney administration that the attacks had been planned in
Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which it refused to provide
any proof.

A more specific motivation was provided by the “pipeline war.” The
Bush-Cheney administration supported--as had the Clinton-Gore
administration until 1999--UNOCAL’s plan to build an oil-and-gas
pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban, being unable to provide
sufficient security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a meeting
in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush-Cheney
administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power with other
factions, reportedly gave them an ultimatum: “Either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
When the Taliban refused, the Americans reportedly said that “military
action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows
started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the
latest.”

Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington occurred
on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get logistically ready
to begin the attack on Afghanistan on October 7.

Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration---including
Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney
himself---had in the late 1990s been active members of an organization,
the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), that advocated
attacking Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military
presence, and control the oil. PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses,
released late in 2000, reiterated the idea of a permanent military
presence in the Gulf region, saying that the “unresolved conflict with
Iraq provides the immediate justification” but “the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Immediately upon taking office, the Bush administration---two former
members have revealed--- was intent on attacking Iraq. Then in 2003,
after its war in Afghanistan, the administration used 9/11 as a pretext
for attacking Iraq, partly by suggesting that Saddam was involved in
the attacks, partly by playing on the American people’s sense, created
by 9/11, of being vulnerable to a major attack from abroad.

Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was provided
by PNAC’s more general goal of further increasing America’s military
superiority to be able to achieve global domination. This goal had
already been asserted in the draft of the “Defense Planning Guidance”
written in 1992 by Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney,
who was completing his tenure as secretary of defense. (In an essay
that was entered into the Congressional Record, this draft was
portrayed as an early version of Cheney’s “Plan . . . to rule the
world.”)

In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as participants in the
project to produce PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which this
goal showed up again. This document also contained an idea perhaps
derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying that the desired Pax
Americana “must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military
preeminence” and that such preeminence will require a technological
transformation of the US military, it adds that this process of
transformation will “likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as “the Pearl Harbor
of the 21st century,” as President Bush reportedly called it that very
night. It was also characterized as, in Bush’s words, “a great
opportunity,” with Rumsfeld adding that 9/11 created “the kind of
opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” This
idea then showed up in The National Security Strategy of the United
States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002,
which brazenly said: “The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new
opportunities.”

A central dimension of the desired technological transformation
of the military is the weaponization of space, euphemistically called
“Missile Defense.” In January of 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S.
National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired
by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need for massive
funding for the U.S. Space Command, the Rumsfeld Commission asked
whether such funding would occur only after a “Space Pearl Harbor.”

On the evening of 9/11, Rumsfeld held a press conference. In
attendance was Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, who was asked this question: “Senator Levin, you
and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t
have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon
is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of
thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase
defense spending. . . ? Congress immediately appropriated an additional
$40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later, with few questions
asked.

VII. Summation: The 9/11 Attacks as Acts of Treason

The facts recited above constitute prima facie evidence that the
named individuals---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---and
other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly guilty of
Treason against these United States under Article III(3) of the U.S.
Constitution, because:

I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could
not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the FAA and
NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald
Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s
response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover,
the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted
by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified
NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and
these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and
the White House.

II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin
Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But
al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the
buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the
buildings come straight down. The controlled demolition, therefore, had
to be the work of insiders. That President Bush was one of those
insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were
principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the
highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the
removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which is normally a federal
offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with
the consent of the president and the secretary of defense (as suggested
in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the
demolition of the buildings implies their involvement in the latter as
well.

III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the
attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could
not be true is evident from many facts: Hani Hanjour’s incompetence;
the choice of the west wing as the target; the impossibility of a
commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting
the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence
consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an
inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the
evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal
of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the
strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the
involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is
also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was
evident---given the truth of the official account---that the United
States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense
only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be
no attack on the school.

V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the
Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of
Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11
Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip
Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the PEOC and when he issued the
shoot-down authorization.

VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush
administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the
fact that they had some huge projects---prosecuting wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological
transformation of the military---that would likely be possible only in
the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

On the basis of this and other evidence, the conclusion that the
Bush-Cheney administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been
reached by many Americans, including intellectuals and former military
officers. It is time for an independent official investigation into
this evidence.

CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public
research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full
treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the
existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment
of an independent prosecutor.

ATTACHMENTS

My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11By an Upper Management LAX Official

I was employed in upper management at LAX involved with security in
the APO (Air Port Operations---where the planes are, not the
passengers). I will not otherwise identify myself in this statement,
since I, for both personal and professional reasons, need to remain
anonymous. But I will give as much detail as possible about
security-related events in the APO that I overheard on September 11,
2001, and will also suggest ways in which my account could be
corroborated.

“Security” in the APO involves the CHP, LAWA PD, LAPD, and the FBI,
herein referred to as “Security” (but the CHP was not in proximity to
me during the period my account covers).

My Account

As on other days, there was “chatter” on LAX Security
walkie-talkies, so what Security was saying could easily be heard. On
some of the walkie-talkies I could overhear both sides of the
conversations, on others only one. I do not know who was at the other
end of the walkie-talkies, but I can only assume that it was LAX
dispatch or command.

While there, I observed and heard the following:

At first, LAX Security was very upset because at that time it seemed
to Security that none of the Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) tracking
the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required. Security was
well aware that LAX was a target and Emergency SOP were already in
progress in that there was discussion of evacuating the airport.

More chatter revealed that the ATCs had notified NORAD, but that
NORAD had not responded because it had been “ordered to stand down.”
This report made Security even more upset, so they tried to find out
who had issued that order. A short time later the word came down that
the order had come “from the highest level of the White House.” This
seemed inappropriate, so Security made attempts for more details and
clarification, which was not resolved in my presence.

3 planes were grounded and swapped out in Atlanta, Georgia, simply
because they did not pass the routine pre-flight inspection checklist.
Those planes were found to be fully loaded with automatic weapons. LAX
Security surmised that could only have been accomplished by
Maintenance, the Caterers, but, in their view, most likely by “House
Keeping.”

LAX Security believed that the terrorists did not board the planes
through the passenger terminals, but rather by similar means, i.e. via
House Keeping. Other airports were mentioned, but I was unable to get
it all down. Therefore, I don’t have an accurate accounting for the
status and location of the other planes.

Another piece of information that I overheard was that the Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.

There was also a radio station identifying itself as LAX Radio, from which the following was heard:

There were 11 planes and 11 targets. But at the time only 10 of the
targets were mentioned: the WTC; the Pentagon; the White House; the
Capitol; Camp David; the Sears Tower; the Space Needle; the Trans
America Bldg.; LAX; and Air Force One--“if it could be found.”

Two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot down a
hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of deployment of the
fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can’t remember the name of the
military base.

Points of origin mentioned included Newark, Atlanta, and other
locations, but it was confusing to me in that I couldn’t determine if
they were with respect to hijacked planes or fighter jets being
scrambled. Unfortunately the names of these airports were not all
familiar to me or it would have been easier for me to account for them.

As I was leaving there was an order to evacuate the airport.

In 2001 and 2002 I tried to notify the media of the events at LAX, but they made it clear they were not interested.

Possible Corroboration

I can think of four ways in which my account of what I heard could be corroborated:

1st LAWA PD, LAPD, and FBI records will reveal the names of the
security officers on duty in the APO during the time of the attacks.

2nd I believe the head of LAX Security in the APO at that time
was Captain Gray. He should be able to confirm the fact that my account
reflects what happened that morning.

3rd The audio recordings of radio transmissions at LAX would
reveal the comments of all the Security officers and LAX
dispatch/command.

4th The audio recording of the LAX Radio broadcast would reveal what was broadcast on 911.

Note: Items 3 and 4 would reveal if I have inadvertently confused
information attained from LAX Security with information received from
LAX Radio. (For example, I believe I heard the comment about a rocket
hitting the Pentagon during the walkie-talkie conversations, but it is
possible that I heard it later on the radio.

3 The FAA reported in a news release on August 9, 2002, that it had
scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and
the Calgary Herald reported on October 13, 2001, that NORAD had
scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. A few days after 9/11, Major Mike
Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, told the Boston Globe that “[NORAD’s]
fighters routinely intercept aircraft” (Glen Johnson, “Otis Fighter
Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks,” Boston Globe, Sept. 15,
2001 [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print]).

6 An upper management official at LAX has reported that he overheard
members of LAX Security (including officers from the FBI and LAPD)
using their walkie-talkies shortly after the attacks. In some cases, he
could hear both sides of the conversation. At first, the LAX officials
were told that the FAA’s Air Traffic Controllers had not notified NORAD
about the hijackings. Later, however, they were told that NORAD had
been notified but did not respond because it had been “ordered to stand
down.” When LAX security officials asked who had issued that order,
they were told that it had come “from the highest level of the White
House” (“My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11,” by an Upper
Management LAX Official [attached]; although this official wants to
remain anonymous, he would willingly take a polygraph test).

8 Chief Thomas McCarthy of the FDNY said that while the firefighters
“were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down,” there was “fire on three
separate floors” (Oral History of Thomas McCarthy, 10-11). Emergency
medical technician Decosta Wright said: “I think the fourth floor was
on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire
out?” (Oral History of Decosta Wright, 11). These quotations are from
the 9/11 oral histories recorded by the New York Fire Department at the
end of 2001 but released to the public (after a court battle) only in
August 2005, at which time they were made available on a New York Times
website (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).

9 A photograph taken by Terry Schmidt can be seen on page 63 of Eric
Hufschmid’s Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack
(Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002) or on Schmidt’s website (http://www.nycwireless.net/Images/wtc2/).
According to Schmidt, this photo was taken between 3:09 and 3:16 PM,
hence only a little over 2 hours before Building 7 collapsed. It shows
that on the north side of the building, fires were visible only on
floors 7 and 12. Therefore, if there were more fires on the south side,
as some witnesses have claimed, they were not big enough to be seen
from the north side.

10 Whereas several witnesses have testified to the existence of
molten steel, a few have reported that the ends of some of the steel
beams were molten---which would be the case if explosives had been used
to slice them. For example, Joe O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked
for many months on the clean-up efforts, said with regard to a beam
that he saw lifted from deep below the surface: “It was dripping from
the molten steel” (Jennifer Lin, "Recovery Worker Reflects on Months
Spent at Ground Zero," Knight Ridder, May 29, 2002 [http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm]).
Another witness---a vice president of his company---reported that
"sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the
end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Trudy Walsh, "Handheld
APP Eased Recovery Tasks," Government Computer News, 21/27a, Sept 11,
2002 [http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html]).

11 See David Ray Griffin, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about
the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories,” 911Truth.org, January 18,
2006 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192).
Fire captain Dennis Tardio, for example, said: "I hear an explosion and
I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top
floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom” (Dennis Smith, Report
from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade
Center [New York: Penguin, 2002], 18. Another firefighter said: “It
seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It
seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these
explosions” (Oral History of Richard Banaciski, 3-4 [see note 8,
above]).

14 For discussions of these six points, see the essay by physicist
Stephen E. Jones, mentioned above, and David Ray Griffin, “The
Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot
Be True,” in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001
(Amsterdam: Elsevier, March, 2006; also available at 911Review.com,
December 9, 2005 [http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html]).

16 Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years
after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, says that it would have
been impossible for Flight 77 to have “descended 7,000 feet in two
minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before
crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the
lawn.” It would, he adds, have been “totally impossible for an amateur
who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a
highly professional manner” (Greg Szymanski, “Former Vietnam Combat and
Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Lewis
News, Sunday, January 8, 2006 [http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623]).
Hanjour’s incompetence was reported by the New York Times, May 4, 2002,
and CBS News, May 10, 2002. The 9/11 Commission Report in one place
calls Hanjour “the operation’s most experienced pilot” (530n147). But
it elsewhere acknowledges that he was known to be a “terrible pilot”
(225-26, 242).

17 Besides the fact that this is what we would expect, this is
evidently what Pentagon officials tell their employees. April Gallop,
who was working in the Pentagon on 9/11, has reportedly said that
during her classified tour when she was first assigned to the Pentagon,
she was told that it was the best-defended building in the world (John
Judge, “Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down
on 9/11,” Ratville Times, Jan. 11, 2006 [www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]).

19 Thierry Meyssan, who has referred to these anti-missile batteries
(Pentagate [London: Carnot, 2002], 112, 116), has said with regard to
his source of information: “The presence of these anti-missile
batteries was testified to me by French officers to whom they were
shown during an official visit to the Pentagon. This was later
confirmed to me by a Saudi officer.” John Judge, co-founder of
9-11 Citizens Watch, has reported that one day his father---John Joseph
Judge, a WWII Army Air Corps veteran who worked at the Pentagon until
his death in 1965---showed him the location of an air-to-surface
missile.Judge also reports that in 1998, he was given a tour of the
Pentagon by Colonel Robinson, the long-time director of security. While
they were outside talking about threats from terrorists, Robinson
pointed to the roof and said, “we have cameras and radar up there to
make sure they don’t try to run a plane into the building.” Since
cameras and radars by themselves would not stop anything, Judge
concluded, Robinson’s statement implicitly referred to anti-aircraft
missiles (John Judge, “Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and
the Stand-Down on 9/11,“ Ratville Times, Jan. 11, 2006 [www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html];
Judge, incidentally, intends with these accounts to argue that there
must have been a stand-down order, not to support the idea that a
missile hit the Pentagon). The Pentagon, to be sure, has denied
that it had any anti-aircraft batteries at that time, saying that they
had been considered “too costly and too dangerous to surrounding
residential areas” (Paul Sperry, “Why the Pentagon Was So Vulnerable,”
WorldNetDaily, Sept. 11, 2001 [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426]). But can anyone believe that Pentagon officials would have let such considerations prevent them from protecting themselves?

21 Karen Kwiatkowski, “Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy
Theory,” in Griffin and Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out. For a more technical discussion of the debris,
see “The Missing Wings” (http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm),
in which A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh argue that the absence of
wing debris alone is sufficient to disprove the claim that a huge
airliner hit the Pentagon. With regard to debris inside the building,
both Ed Plaugher, the county fire chief, and Lee Evey, the head of the
renovation project, reported seeing no big pieces from an airplane
(DoD News Briefings, September 12 and 15, 2001).

26 “Eyewitness: The Pentagon,” Space.com, June 30, 2005 (http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html).
Also relevant is testimony that it appeared to be a small military
airplane, because some such planes and some missiles look very much
alike. Danielle O’Brien, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles,
said on the basis of the radar data: “The speed, the maneuverability,
the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us
experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane”
(ABC News, Oct. 24, 2001). Another witness, seeing the aircraft from a
14th floor apartment in Pentagon City, said that it “seemed to be able
to hold eight or twelve persons” and “made a shrill noise like a
fighter plane” (“Extensive Casualties in Wake of Pentagon Attack,”
Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2001). There were, to be sure, many people
who reported seeing an airliner, perhaps even one with American
Airlines markings, headed towards or even hit the Pentagon. For an
assessment of the credibility of these testimonies, which shows that
they should not be given more weight than the physical evidence and the
contrary testimony, see Dave McGowan, “September 11, 2001 Revisited:
Act II: Addendum 2” (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html).

31 Karen Kwiatkowski, who was working at the Pentagon that morning,
reports that “any physical remains of the aircraft that hit the
Pentagon were quickly carted away to some unknown location, so we have
no physical evidence that the aircraft really was Flight 77 or even a
Boeing 757” (“Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory”).
Photographic evidence of this removal can be seen on Eric Hufschmid’s
video, “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net).

33 On the confiscation of the film from the Citgo gas station and a
nearby hotel, respectively, see Bill McKelway “Three Months On, Tension
Lingers Near the Pentagon,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 11, 2001 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html), and Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, Sept. 21, 2001.

34 Scott Bingham, who has tried to get videos of the Pentagon strike
released under the Freedom of Information Act, has his lawsuit and the
revealing response posted on his website, Welcome to Flight 77.info (http://www.flight77.info). A summary of this response is provided in “Government Responds to Flight 77 FOAI Request,” 911Truth.org, Aug. 2005 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050824131004151).
Further evidence of a cover-up is provided by investigative journalist
Wayne Madsen, who reports that he learned from both a senior Pentagon
official and a U.S. Army employee that a strict anti-leak policy was
enacted after 9/11, which forbad all employees to discuss the Pentagon
strike and the FBI’s confiscation of the security video tapes (Wayne
Madsen Report, Jan. 15, 2006 [http://www.waynemadsenreport.com]).

35 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized
Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 39.

42 During the Senate Armed Services Committee’s interview with
General Richard Myers (who was nominated to become chair of the Joint
Chiefs) on September 13, 2001, the chair, Senator Carl Levin, said that
“there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in
Pennsylvania was shot down.” Myers replied that “the armed forces did
not shoot down any aircraft” (“Senate Armed Services Committee Holds
Hearing on Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2001” [available
at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040814220906511]).

43 See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, 238-39. Additional evidence that Flight 93 was shot down
came from an apparent slip by Secretary Rumsfeld during his visit to
Iraq on Christmas Eve, 2004, when he referred to “the people who
attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over
Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon” (“Surprise Trip for Donald
Rumsfeld,” CNN, Dec. 24, 2004 [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html]).
Evidence of a more explicit nature came from Paul Cellucci,
Washington’s envoy to Canada in February of 2005. Seeking to convince
Canada to support the missile defense shield, he told his audience in
Toronto that a Canadian general was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 when it,
under orders from President Bush, scrambled military jets to shoot down
a hijacked aircraft headed for Washington (Colin Perkel and Beth
Gorham, “Missile Rejection Perplexes U.S.,” Canadian Press, Feb. 23,
2005 [available at http://www.curevents.com/vb/showpost.php?p=51773&postcount=1]).

44 Clarke reports that he received the authorization from Cheney
shortly after 9:45, when the evacuation of the White House began
(Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror
[New York: Free Press, 2004], 7-8). According to James Bamford and an
ABC News program called “9/11” (Sept. 11, 2002), Colonel Marr, after
receiving Cheney’s shoot-down order, “sent out word to air traffic
controllers to instruct fighter pilots to destroy the United jetliner,”
saying: “United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach
Washington, D.C.” (Bamford, A Pretext for War [New York: Doubleday,
2004], 65-66). “These testimonies contradict the 9/11 Commission’s
claim that the military did not even know about the hijacking of Flight
93 until it had crashed.”

46 Why exactly the military denied shooting down Flight 93, rather
than taking credit for preventing a second attack on Washington, is
unclear. But the very fact that the military and the White House have
steadfastly denied shooting down Flight 93 suggests that this was a
criminal act, which as such needed to be covered up.

48 Secretary of State Powell promised a White Paper presenting this
proof, but it was never produced. Also, although the Taliban said that
it would hand bin Laden over if the United States presented evidence of
his involvement in 9/11, Bush replied that there would be no
negotiations or even discussion (“White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will
Defeat You,’” CNN.com, Sept. 21, 2001). Four weeks after the attacks
began, a Taliban spokesman said: "We will negotiate. But . . . [w]e are
not a province of the United States, to be issued orders to. We have
asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?"
(Kathy Gannon, AP, “Taliban Willing To Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect” [http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/1001/w01taliban.html]).

51 This according to Niaz Naik, the highly respected Pakistani
representative at the meeting, as reported in George Arney, “U.S.
‘Planned Attack on Taleban,’” BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001. According to a
story in the Guardian, “Threat of U.S. Strikes Passed to Taliban Weeks
Before NY Attack” (Sept. 22, 2001), one of the American representatives
confirmed that this discussion of military action did occur.

52 See Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, “Saddam Must Go,”
Weekly Standard, Dec. 1997; PNAC, “Letter to President Clinton on
Iraq,” Jan. 26, 1998 (www.newamericancentury.org); and PNAC, “Letter to Gingrich and Lott,” May 29, 1998 (www.newamericancentury.org). The signers of the latter two letters included Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

53 The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s
Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September
2000 (www.newamericancentury.org), 14.

54 Paul O’Neill, who was secretary of the treasury and hence a
member of the National Security Council, has stated this in Ron
Susskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and
the Education of Paul O’Neill (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004),
and in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on January 11, 2004. The main
topic within days of the inauguration, O’Neill says, was going after
Saddam, with the question being not “Why Saddam?” or “Why Now?” but
merely “finding a way to do it.” Susskind, whose book also draws on
interviews with other officials, says that in its first weeks the Bush
administration was discussing the occupation of Iraq and the question
of how to divide up its oil (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml).
Richard Clarke, who had been the National Coordinator for Security and
Counterterrorism, has confirmed O’Neill’s charge, saying: “The
administration of the second George Bush did begin with Iraq on its
agenda” (Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror [New York:
Free Press, 2004], 264).

55 David Armstrong, “Dick Cheney’s Song of America,” Harper’s,
October, 2002 (entered into the Congressional Record on October 10,
2002). One long section of the 1992 draft, Armstrong points out, began
by acknowledging “definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense.”

62 “Department of Defense News Briefing on Pentagon Attack, 6:42 PM, Sept. 11, 2001” (available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/dod_brief02.htm).
The transcript, incidentally, has the question coming from Secretary
Rumsfeld. But the flow of the discussion suggests that it came from a
reporter. In either case, the 9/11 attacks were interpreted to mean
that greater defense spending was needed, “especially for missile
defense.”

63 See at least most of the contributors to Paul Zarembka, ed., The
Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006 [March]); David
Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006 [fall]);
and Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb, Jr., and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9/11
and the American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out
(Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006 [fall]). These intellectuals
include John B. Cobb, Jr., one of America’s eminent Protestant
theologians; Rosemary Ruether, one of America’s leading Catholic
theologians; Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at
Princeton University; and Morgan Reynolds, the chief economist at the
U.S. Department of Labor during part of the first term of George W.
Bush.

64 Retired USAF Colonel George Nelson, for example, has written of
the “nightmarish probability . . . that so many Americans appear to be
involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history”
(“911: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to Their Identity: The Precautionary
Principle,” Rense.com, April 23, 2005 [http://www.rense.com/general64/prec.htm ])

QUESTION: What is The SEPTEMBER 11 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT?

ANSWER: The Act is a Public Act of the United States Congress, and a
Joint Resolution of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives
in the U.S. Congress. It can be introduced by any U.S. Senator and any
U.S. Representative at no cost simply by handing the Act to the Clerk
according to official rules.

QUESTION: What is the purpose of The SEPTEMBER 11 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT?

ANSWER: The Act would appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the
authority of Article III(3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute
Treason against these United States of America by U.S. President George
W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of
Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for planning
and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article III(3) of
the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out, and/or
causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on
September 11, 2001, as part of a False Flag Operation. Article III of
the U.S. Constitution provides that, "Sect. 3. Treason against the
United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort...."

On September 11, 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary
Committee released a report by Independent Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr,
which eventually led to an Article of Impeachment against President
William Jefferson Clinton under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

QUESTION: What are the main grounds for concluding that
there is prima facie evidence that the named individuals - U.S.
President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld - abused the power of their
office and committed Article III Treason on September 11, 2001?

ANSWER: This is what the Legislative Memorandum accompanying The SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT states:

VII. Summation: The 9/11 Attacks as Acts of Treason

The facts recited above constitute prima facie evidence that the
named individuals---U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld---and
other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly guilty of
Treason against these United States under Article III(3) of the U.S.
Constitution, because:

I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could
not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the FAA and
NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald
Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s
response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover,
the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted
by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified
NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and
these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and
the White House.

II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin
Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But
al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the
buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the
buildings come straight down. The controlled demolition, therefore, had
to be the work of insiders. That President Bush was one of those
insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were
principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the
highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the
removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which is normally a federal
offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with
the consent of the president and the secretary of defense (as suggested
in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the
demolition of the buildings implies their involvement in the latter as
well.

III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the
attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could
not be true is evident from many facts: Hani Hanjour’s incompetence;
the choice of the west wing as the target; the impossibility of a
commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting
the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence
consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an
inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the
evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal
of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the
strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the
involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is
also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was
evident---given the truth of the official account---that the United
States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense
only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be
no attack on the school.

V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the
Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of
Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11
Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip
Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the PEOC and when he issued the
shoot-down authorization.

VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush
administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the
fact that they had some huge projects---prosecuting wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological
transformation of the military---that would likely be possible only in
the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

On the basis of this and other evidence, the conclusion that the
Bush-Cheney administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been
reached by many Americans, including intellectuals and former military
officers. It is time for an independent official investigation into
this evidence.

CAVEAT LECTOR: This memorandum is based upon the best public
research resources presently available. It is presented not as a full
treatment of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the
existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the appointment
of an independent prosecutor.

The SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR ACT

Joint Res. _______ 1__th CONGRESS ____ Session

Joint Res. _______

To appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article
III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these
United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the
acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S.
Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out and/or causing
to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September
11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE U.S. SENATE & HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Date: ____________________Sen. ________________________ and Rep.
____________________________________ introduced the following Joint
Resolution of the Congress of the United States

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE U.S. SENATE & HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

To appoint an Independent Prosecutor under the authority of Article
III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute Treason against these
United States of America by U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for planning and carrying out the
acts of treason, as defined in Article III (3) of the U.S.
Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying out and/or causing
to be carried out an armed attack upon these United States on September
11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception operation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

WHEREAS, U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard
B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other John
and Jane Does planned and carried out acts of treason, as defined in
Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out,
carrying out and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon
these United States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic
deception operation; and

WHEREAS, the goals of the strategic deception operation of September
11, 2001 included providing a pretext for the unilateral abrogation of
the ABM Treaty (announced by U.S. President George W. Bush on June 13,
2002) and for the weaponization of space; for the abrogation of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
Constitution; and for the launching of illegal wars of aggression in
violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

WHEREAS, There is a sufficient legal threshold of evidence to issue
an indictment for the crime of Treason against these individuals under
the US Constitution, which in Article III (3) provides: "Sect. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on open confession
in open court."

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `The SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TREASON Independent Prosecutor Act'.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST TREASON AGAINST THESE UNITED STATES.Congress
reaffirms the prohibition under the US Constitution, which in Article
III (3) provides: "Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of
treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act,
or on open confession in open court."

SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT AND FUNDING OF A SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORCongress
hereby appoints and fully funds an Independent Prosecutor under the
authority of Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution to prosecute
Treason against these United States of America by George Walker Bush,
Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and other John and Jane Does for
planning and carrying out the acts of treason, as defined in Article
III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, by conspiring to carry out, carrying
out and/or causing to be carried out an armed attack upon these United
States on September 11, 2001, as part of a strategic deception
operation.